1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this case in this case are deleted from the first part of the first part of the first part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the "ownership of E" of the fifth part of the judgment of the court of first instance as "ownership of E or its heir", and the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance as "ownership of E or its heir."

A. (2) Except as mentioned below, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, and such part shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

(2) Furthermore, a registration made under the Act on Special Measures shall be presumed to be a registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and unless it is proved that a letter of guarantee or confirmation, which forms the basis of the registration, was false or forged, or that it was not a lawful registration by other reason, the presumption power of the above registration shall not be reversed. The above false letter of guarantee or confirmation refers to a letter of guarantee or confirmation, which is not consistent with the truth, and since the Act on Special Measures permits a registration in accordance with the process of the alteration of rights to the assignee of real estate, it shall be deemed that the letter of guarantee or confirmation is written as being taken over after the death of the original owner, and it shall not be said that the letter of guarantee or confirmation is false, but if it has been proved that the substantial contents are not true by other data, the presumption power of registration shall be deemed to be reversed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da2236 delivered on April 23, 1991). In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the presumption power of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the land Nos. 1 and 2 was reversed, and each of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 9, 13 through 16 (including paper numbers) is insufficient to reverse it, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

Therefore, the first, second, and second, of this case.